Were the moon landings faked?

The answer is of course no but there is still a large body of belief that they were.As an electronic technician who was well acquainted with the TV camera and communication systems of the time and who viewed all the original broadcasts I am shocked by all the CGI copies of the historic pictures that are being published on the media today.These can of course only give the impression that the whole thing was shot in the Hollywood film studios.I well remember the improvement of picture quality that was achieved when the first portable parabolic antenna was deployed and the excitement on future landings when the monochrome TV cameras were replaced by frame sequential colour ones

A lot of people are gullible. Hence why advertisers manipulate them so easily. The school system should teach kids to think for themselves and not just be good little workers. Then this nonsense would die the swift death it deserves.

Logged

Even the most obstinately ignorant cannot avoid learning when in an environment that educates.

The giveaway is that the photos of the other side of the moon don't look like the real thing we can see from this side. Shoddy graphics or interesting selenology? I know which conclusion a government committee would support, on grounds of cost.

I know which conclusion a government committee would support, on grounds of cost.

An interesting thing about government committees is that, because they have access to indefinitely large funding through taxation or simply printing money, they have less reason to consider cost than private/ commercial committees.

It's like the absurd saying "close enough for government work".Government work got us to the Moon.The most precise measurements of things are typically government funded work.

Governments seem on the one hand unable to control costs (e.g. HS2) and on the other, to award contracts to the lowest bidder regardless of his ability to deliver (Seaborne), then compensate those who were not invited to bid (Eurotunnel) with the third hand, without establishing the need for any of the projects it the first place. Or, having developed an excellent and functional product (TSR2), scrap it, destroy all the jigs and documents, and contract to buy a machine (F111) that had never flown, at a price that climbed faster than the plane itself. Or, having decided that the private sector must carry the nonexistent risk of building and running hospitals, shell out uncontrolled service fees or pay huge deposits to companies that go bust as soon as their directors have bought their yachts.

Not that it matters. It's your money they are spending, and you have to pay your taxes whether you like it or not.

Alan Shepherd was asked what he thought about during a countdown. His reply: "Ten million moving parts, each made by the lowest bidder." Pilots are expendable, accountants are essential.

Or, having decided that the private sector must carry the nonexistent risk of building and running hospitals,

That's not any competent government; it's a Tory one.They did that to undermine public sector work.Everyone knows that.

I am enternally grateful to a Tory government for its obsession with reducing the size of the civil service. They gave me 35 years' pension for 25 years' work, and a cash bribe, all for the sake of a few votes (as if anyone really cared anyway). And a year later they recruited two blokes to do my work.

But myopic idiocy comes in all colors. It was a Labour government that built the R101 and scrapped TSR2. And both parties shared the Brabazon fiasco.